Home | About | Donate

Trump Trade Position Is Opposite Of What People Think It Is


#1

Trump Trade Position Is Opposite Of What People Think It Is

Dave Johnson

One of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s stronger economic appeals to working-class voters is his position on trade. Trump understands that people are upset that “trade” deals have moved so many jobs out of the country and he offers solutions that sound like he is saying he will bring the jobs back so wages can start going up again.

But a deeper look at what he is really saying might not be so appealing to voters.


#2

“Our taxes are too high. Our wages are too high. We have to compete with other countries.”

This has been obvious to anyone who can read this jerk, Donald Trump for what he actually stands for. It is nice to see this author bring forth that evidence.

Oh yes Trump supporters, he's just such an anti-Establisment kind of guy, don't you know. A real populist, that Trump.

Corporate tax rates to 15%!!!!! Go Trump!!!!!! Move factories to low wage states, so those abandoned workers will beg to have their jobs back with lower pay!!!!!! Go Trump!!!!!!

Behold the Political Correctness of Trump, that he keeps himself, for the most part, from letting that whole "wage" argument slip.

And now for the disclaimer, that I have found absolutely necessary…

And once again. Yes Clinton is endangering world peace, yes she has a long track record of being a war criminal both indirectly and directly, yes she is likely to continue neocon driven policies of Global Hegemony that come from the bowels of PNAC et al, and yes that furtherance of those initiatives and agendas of those neocons is driving the world closer to a possible Nuclear confrontation with Russia.

And Clinton's populism is just as fake, as she saw fit to make on average $29,000 per day in the two years she engaged in her pay for play speech extravaganza, although even Clinton hasn't talked about the need to lower wages in a scheme envisioned by Donald Fucking Trump.

Did I just make an argument to vote for Clinton? No.


#4

15% with no loopholes would should be much better than what we have now, just sayin', don't know that will be the case.


#6

You aren't seriously proposing that a Trump administration would seriously push for ANY effective increase on ANY corporation's taxes.

What he is proposing is an across the board tax cut, and the damn loopholes would certainly be kept in place, that would then of course, create effective rates for most Corporations drop to the near zero, or zero that some of the largest Corporations enjoy now.


#9

Exactly. Isn't austerity part of the neocon/liberal theory? Corporate control is a part of it too. Clinton won't talk about it, neither has Obama but wages are being depressed now. Trump and Clinton are very much the same. The need to compete with other countries (mostly low wage) is a globalist idea. TPP?


#10

Greedy republicans like their corporate sponsors always expect us low life peons to do things that they themselves the republicans would never do, they expect us to take one for team America while they sit back and slurp up the gravy..its always about sacrifice and pulling yourself up by the bootstraps you know the rhetorical jargon stuff they wouldn't do if they was starving in the street.but they would make us do it in a minute without pause and no conscience...But the 1% would never take one for the team...Hell we had to bail them out because they couldn't pull their self up by the bootstraps nooo!..The moochers still made us take one for the team and it was them who screwed the nation with criminal activity and major corruption..Their bought and paid for politicians made sure they got tax dollars so they could keep getting them bonuses...How quickly the voters forget who is on their side and it is not the republicans..They will drag this country down to the bottom like a third world nation were people will have to beg.for $2 hr jobs and at $2 hr the corporate would still bitch that it is to much.....They want us to make them prosperous so they can sit back and say hey we have made America great(for the rich fks)..the ones they serve....Trump like all the republicans are full of shit...literally...they can pass gas out of both ends equally and with stinky results. Wages are to high he says...Well what about CEOs wages I think they are to fkn high so what do you think about that Trump you big orange piece of shit.


#11

Clintons no prize but Trump is a fkn disaster in the making...he would destroy the american dream by making it the american nightmare......No thanks ill take the lessor of two weevils.


#12

I consistently make arguments against both.

Vote your conscience.


#13

Didn't Clinton, as sec of state, guarantee and deliver lower wages in Haiti to bring in manufacturing jobs? I believe she stopped the minimum wage hike of twenty cents. Their wages stayed at forty cents rather than "increasing" to sixty cents. But who needs a job when you have the Clinton foundation rebuilding your country after a devastating earthquake-right? I forgot , only a fraction of promised structures were built.


#14

Given the longstanding association with the Clinton's it is painfully obvious that the time for Trump to increase his inanities, now that the DNC has effectively eliminated Sanders from contention, to secure Hillary's ascendancy has come. Watch as he further alienates the GOP membership and the voting public. The proof will be the payoffs he receives after the Presidency has been secured for the Clinton regime.


#15

Watch the Clinton Cash movie on YouTube for the exact numbers, plus a few tasty treats for the Clit-ns.


#16

Likewise, the Clinton trade position is the opposite of what people think it is. (This can be remedied with a bit of online research, referring to established, reputable sources.) In 2015, before launching her campaign, Hillary Clinton was working hard on selling the TPP to Congress. This wasn't done secretly, was routinely reported in the news. We weren't surprised, since her husband had stuck us with NAFTA. The online media marketed to middle class liberals have been quite misleading on this issue, though we can note that most have been firm Clintonites since the 1990s.


#17

There are no lesser of the evils here. Trump/Clinton have virtually the same ideologies.. We fear Trump because of what we don't know about him, and fear Clinton because of what we do know about her. Both present the very real threat of all-out, enforced fascism.

On that point, note that the US has actually has been slowly implementing fascism, from the bottom up, for years. Because the US itself is an economic entity, it makes sense that our fascism is based on class, rather than nationality, etc. The US actually stripped our poor of a number of fundamental civil and human rights (per the UN's UDHR), meeting the definition of fascism. All these years that liberal media have been promoting middle class elitism, virtually disappearing our very poor, they have been promoting fascism, by definition.


#19

Many of those who ridicule climate change deniers correctly point out that 99% of all PhD meteorologists agree that carbon dioxide is associated with rising global temperatures. However free-trade opponents do not consider the fact that that 99% of all PhD economists agree that free-trade and the TPP in particular will greatly benefit America and raise standards of living .
Protectionism is the progressivism of fools. Gandhi was a great statesman but a horrible economist. Just as the ignorant in the USA argue that American workers who earn $15 per hour should not have to compete with Chinese workers who make $2 per hour, Gandhi thought that Indian workers should not have to compete with American and European workers who have the benefit of modern machines. As a result India adopted protectionism. In 1947 the per capita income of India was similar to countries such a South Korea. By 1977 the per capita income and standard of living in South Korea was ten times that of India. India has since largely abandoned protectionism and has benefited immensely from free trade. Just as David Ricardo proved would be the case when he developed the concept of comparative advantage.
Protectionism can save jobs. In the USA the best measurement of the cost per job saved to the rest of the country is about $1 million per job saved. Saving one job might provide $100,000 in gains to the worker and the employer who benefit from the protectionism, but cost the rest of the country $1,000,000. Since the million dollars is just one third of one cent per person in the USA, no one notices it.
To save a million jobs via protectionism would cost the country a S trillion which would be about the same impact as a very severe recession. To save 10 million jobs via protectionism would cost the country a S10 trillion. That would make the USA a poorer country than Mexico. That would mean it would be likely the people born in the USA would be going to Mexico to work as servants and dishwashers. The degree of impoverishment that would result from that much protectionism is usually only associated with severe natural disasters or wars.

“....Equally unhelpful in terms of addressing the income and wealth inequality are various non-tax factors. Issues such as minimum wage laws, unwed mothers, globalization, free trade, unionization, problems with our education system and infrastructure can increase the income and wealth inequality. However, these are extremely minor when compared to the shift of the tax burden from the rich to the middle class. It is the compounding effect of shift away from taxes on capital income such as dividends each year as the rich get proverbially richer which is the prime generator of inequality…”
seekingalpha /article/1543642


#21

. In free-market capitalism, capital generates income for the owners of the capital which in turn is used to create additional capital. This is very good. Sometimes, it can be actually too good. As capital continues to accumulate, its owners find it more and more difficult to deploy it efficiently. The business sector generally must interact with the household sector by selling goods and services or lending to them. When capital accumulates too rapidly, the productive capacity of the business sector can outpace the ability of the household sector to absorb the increasing production.

The capitalists, or if you prefer, job creators use their increasing wealth and income to reinvest, thus increasing the productive capacity of the business they own. They also lend their accumulated wealth to other business as well as other entities after they have exhausted opportunities within business they own. As they seek to deploy ever more capital, excess factories, housing and shopping centers are built and more and more dubious loans are made. This is overinvestment. As one banker described the events leading up to 2008 – First the banks lent all they could to those who could pay them back and then they started to lend to those could not pay them back. As cash poured into banks in ever increasing amounts, caution was thrown to the wind. For a while consumers can use credit to buy more goods and services than their incomes can sustain. Ultimately, the overinvestment results in a financial crisis that causes unemployment, reductions in factory utilization and bankruptcies all of which reduce the value of investments.

If the economy was suffering from accumulated chronic underinvestment, shifting income from the non-rich to the rich would make sense. Underinvestment would mean there was a shortage of shopping centers, hotels, housing and factories were operating at 100% of capacity but still not able to produce as many cars and other goods as people needed. It might not seem fair, but the quickest way to build up capital is to take income away from the middle class who have a high propensity to consume and give to the rich who have a propensity to save (and invest). Except for periods in the 1950s and 1960s and possibly the 1990’s when tax rates on the rich just happened to be high enough to prevent overinvestment, the economy has generally suffered from periodic overinvestment cycles.

It is not just a coincidence that tax cuts for the rich have preceded both the 1929 and 2007 depressions. The Revenue acts of 1926 and 1928 worked exactly as the Republican Congresses that pushed them through promised. The dramatic reductions in taxes on the upper income brackets and estates of the wealthy did indeed result in increases in savings and investment. However, overinvestment (by 1929 there were over 600 automobile manufacturing companies in the USA) caused the depression that made the rich, and most everyone else, ultimately much poorer.

Since 1969 there has been a tremendous shift in the tax burdens away from the rich on onto the middle class. Corporate income tax receipts, whose incidence falls entirely on the owners of corporations, were 4% of GDP then and are now less than 1%. During that same period, payroll tax rates as percent of GDP have increased dramatically. The overinvestment problem caused by the reduction in taxes on the wealthy is exacerbated by the increased tax burden on the middle class. While overinvestment creates more factories, housing and shopping centers; higher payroll taxes reduces the purchasing power of middle-class consumers. ..."
seekingalpha article/1543642


#24

You are reconstructing the same straw man argument we rebutted again and again back in the Seattle/Quebec/Goteborg/Genoa days. Nobody is against free trade between members of nations - but these "free trade" treaties are almost only tangentially about free trade and are more charters of submission of sovereignty to private economic interests, where a corporation or wealthy individual can even stop a nation or local community from passing needed laws to protect their workers and their environment. The deals also prevent vital compulsory licensing of critical lifesaving drugs through onerous intellectual-so-called-property rules.


#26

Trying to figure out why you are asking rhetorical questions directed at me about Clinton. Just to be clear, there is nothing about Clinton that I would defend. Nothing.


#27

Trump has also said we need no Wall St. regulation at all and that once he is in office, he will stop the enforcement of the already abysmally inadequate new regulations put in place since '08. In all his economic and social policies, such as they are, he is basically Ayn Rand. I'm not sure why more people haven't noticed it before. He has certainly never read her books and probably has only a vague notion of who she is, but he unconsciously lives by her cutthroat ideals.

The economy for the general public is not going to be well-served by either Trump or Clinton. That they are the two leading candidates is no accident.


#28

oops! meant to direct that to LRX. and not you PC


#29

Would never vote for a minor league fascist like Trump but, truth be told, I find his frankness to be refreshing unlike his competitor who is adept at hiding her inner Mrs. Hyde.